Tetru Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2026)

Tetru Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest/surrender within six weeks, on bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Banka, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Issue for consideration

Whether Tetru Manjhi, who is apprehending arrest in Panjwara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026 (District Banka), registered for an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within six weeks, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

Ratio / Principle

The enlargement on anticipatory bail is subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL — ALLOWED. Patna High Court (Praveen Kumar, J), by order dated 21-05-2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34725 of 2026, allowed the anticipatory-bail application of Tetru Manjhi, who apprehended arrest in Panjwara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026, Thana PANJWARA, District Banka, registered for an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, in which, per the prosecution case, 54.735 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from an e-rickshaw. The petitioner was directed to furnish bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each upon arrest/surrender within six weeks, to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Banka, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.). Counsel for the petitioner had urged innocence, implication merely as owner of the seized e-rickshaw, absence from the spot at seizure, the e-rickshaw having been given to a driver for plying, non-following of the procedure under Section 105 BNSS, and a clean criminal record; the learned APP for the State opposed the prayer.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34725 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2026 Thana- PANJWARA District- Banka

======================================================

Tetru Manjhi S/o Dhurkheli Manjhi Resident of Village- Maldhi Khatnai, PSGodda, Distt- Godda(Jharkhand)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A nil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 21-05-2026

The matter has been taken up today through video

conferencing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Panjwara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, total 54.735 litres of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from an e-rickshaw.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the ground of being the owner of the seized vehicle from which the alleged liquor was recovered. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not arrested at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34725 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026 2/2

spot. It has also been submitted that, at the time of seizure, the e-rickshaw was not under the control of the petitioner, as the petitioner had given the same to the driver for plying. It has also been submitted that the procedure prescribed under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. has not been followed. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has got a clean criminal record.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Heard the parties and perused the record.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Banka, in connection with Panjwara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.)

9. This application stands allowed.

(Praveen Kumar, J)

Jyoti/-

U T